GD-New Pimp Daddy

[Kalen Braley]

Who gets hurt are the local clubs that Rater's drop once they get the golden ticket. It's a win/win for everyone else.

Barney,

I can't imagine that would be the case.  If I were a rater, the courses I would focus on first are the ones here in SLC, most of which are public, so they would never even know I was there.  Its likely an underserved area and it would be the most convenient.

And I'm guessing  Jim, who is a rater for GD has already done so in the Baltimore area and is now expanding out.

Not buying it JK...

[John Kavanaugh]

Kalen,

I know several raters who dropped their memberships at their local clubs because when they became raters there is no logical reason to still pay dues. It only hurts the Mom and Pops so who cares.

[John Kavanaugh]

Jim is a great rater, I say this because he likes my course, but even he is full of it when he says traveling is a rater expense. Jim works his ass off running a successful business.

[BHoover]

Kalen,

I know several raters who dropped their memberships at their local clubs because when they became raters there is no logical reason to still pay dues. It only hurts the Mom and Pops so who cares.

So does joining an out-of-town club as a national member.

[Matthew Sander]

Jim,

Obviously not all are bad but there are plenty that make it known they expect preferential treatment "or else", heck some spell it out rather clearly. That said I play a majority of my golf with panelists from the various publications and consider many to be good friends, no matter how badly they beat me or critique the course.

It would be nice if there were tighter protocols on how one presents themselves, what they should/should not expect... etc. I've had guys send wonderful hand written letters introducing themselves, providing background and explaining a bit about how they will go about their review/rating. Overkill? Perhaps but much better than the guy that makes his reservaiton on line, provides his CC in doing so then arrives, slaps his card down on the counter and announces to my staff that he doesn't have to pay because "I'm a rater!"  Sadly that is far more frequent than the nice introduction letter.

Hi Greg,


Two things...


As this thread began in response to Golf Digest panelists, I would like to point out that GD panelists do not evaluate courses in Mexico (you are at Cabo Del Sol if I'm not mistaken) or the Caribbean.  Anyone who presents him or herself as a GD panelist at your club is doing so fraudulently. It is impossible for us to even submit an evaluation for your club. Maybe you are referring to other raters, but if you encounter this from a supposed GD rather, then it would be advisable to report to the powers that be.


Secondly, the behavior you mention regarding comps is abhorrent. I am not naive enough to think it doesn't happen, but nevertheless I am astounded when I do hear of it. Every panelist I have played with has been extremely appreciative, paid green fee or not.

[Kalen Braley]

"Magazines charge because they can. Raters pay because it is a great value. What is so hard to understand."

It's not hard to understand at all. That's why it was so easy for me to walk away and leave the whoring to those willing to be whores. Everybody likes sex. But not everybody is willing to allow sex to become a business transaction.

Dave,

I take it your a single guy then!   

[Greg Tallman]

Jim,

Obviously not all are bad but there are plenty that make it known they expect preferential treatment "or else", heck some spell it out rather clearly. That said I play a majority of my golf with panelists from the various publications and consider many to be good friends, no matter how badly they beat me or critique the course.

It would be nice if there were tighter protocols on how one presents themselves, what they should/should not expect... etc. I've had guys send wonderful hand written letters introducing themselves, providing background and explaining a bit about how they will go about their review/rating. Overkill? Perhaps but much better than the guy that makes his reservaiton on line, provides his CC in doing so then arrives, slaps his card down on the counter and announces to my staff that he doesn't have to pay because "I'm a rater!"  Sadly that is far more frequent than the nice introduction letter.

Hi Greg,


Two things...


As this thread began in response to Golf Digest panelists, I would like to point out that GD panelists do not evaluate courses in Mexico (you are at Cabo Del Sol if I'm not mistaken) or the Caribbean.  Anyone who presents him or herself as a GD panelist at your club is doing so fraudulently. It is impossible for us to even submit an evaluation for your club. Maybe you are referring to other raters, but if you encounter this from a supposed GD rather, then it would be advisable to report to the powers that be.


Secondly, the behavior you mention regarding comps is abhorrent. I am not naive enough to think it doesn't happen, but nevertheless I am astounded when I do hear of it. Every panelist I have played with has been extremely appreciative, paid green fee or not.

Matthew, I noted earlier in this discussion that GD panelists do not rate outside the US, something that comes directly from the top. Just last week I fielded a call from a GD panelist stating that he was enlisted to review the course. I called him on it, saying that I was told directly that panelists did not rate outside the US.

Many are wonderful. Wish I could say most but I will stick with many.

The GD panelist I am playing with Monday is very questionable. Brit living in Arkansas... sketchy.

[Andrew Carr]

It seems the integrity of the individual Raters is at the heart of this spirited exchange of ideas.  All in this discussion appear to have no issue with the “good eggs” and no one appears to have any issues in removing the “bad eggs” from the Rater ranks.  Obviously there is some disconnect so far as who is getting the most value and at whose expense (if anyone’s,) but how do the Big 3 “police” their good and bad eggs?
 
I found the Golfweek Rater Handbook from 2009-2010 with a simple Google Search and found the section “Course visit guidelines” to be extremely reasonable.  Dr. Klein seemed to go to great length to explain all the possible sticky scenarios in which one could overstep one’s roll and how to avoid it.  And if a particular Rater hasn’t been introduced to Emily Post or good manners, he even explains to write a formal thank you note and specifies not to email that thank you note.  If GW Raters simply read that guide and follow Dr. Klein’s instruction, there would be no “bad eggs.”
 
So, do any of you know if there is a formal “policing” at any or all of the Big 3?  If so, how successful are those policies in removing those “bad eggs?”  From there maybe we can discuss possible ways to better identify those “bad eggs…”

[Greg Tallman]

Jeff,

The magazines need good writers far more than good raters. These panels keep the good guys employed.

Raters will that much impact should not be paying to provide it. I just can't get my head around the economics of this arrangement. Courses want this, right? Magazines want this right? Why would the laborers have to fund it?

The economics are simple.  The magazines have zero cost of goods sold, and sell their goods for what the market will bear.  It's all profit.  Like in Goodfellas where he said they pay for a case of booze and sell it out the back because they were never going to pay for it anyway.  Here, the magazines get their inventory for FREE, and then sell it.  In essence, they're stealing their inventory from the courses, the same as if they at in the shoe business and highjacked shoe trucks and sold the shoes at a discount at a pop-up store.  It's the same thing.  They're taking somebody else's goods, repackaging (a very kind description) it as their own, and selling it at a 100% profit margin.

Bingo

[Jeff Taylor]

" They're taking somebody else's goods, repackaging (a very kind description) it as their own, and selling it at a 100% profit margin. "






So the courses are the suckers. They must think they are getting some value.

[DMoriarty]

Lordy, I hate the use of "Dr." in front of the name of anybody who doesn't practice some form of medicine. His momma called him Brad.  I call him Brad.

[Matthew Sander]

Matthew, I noted earlier in this discussion that GD panelists do not rate outside the US, something that comes directly from the top. Just last week I fielded a call from a GD panelist stating that he was enlisted to review the course. I called him on it, saying that I was told directly that panelists did not rate outside the US.

Sorry Greg...I didn't realize you referred to that in your previous posts. I get an "F" for the day in reading comprehension. Just as a side note, GD panelists do evaluate Canadian courses.


It really is too bad that you've had a considerable number of negative experiences with panelists. I guess it shouldn't surprise me how misguided and crass people can be.

[Kalen Braley]

As has been said before, I don't think there is any mystery to any of it.

The magazines get the free ratings info, to sell off for 100% profit - WIN

The courses get publicity for a very cheap in the form of a few comp'd rounds - WIN

The raters get to play a wide variety of courses, some of them maybe they couldn't have played otherwise - WIN

[Kalen Braley]

The real question it seems, is still out there.  Everyone bitches and moans about the current system...

..but by all means, what would be better?  Please be specific with reasons on why it would be superior, how it would work fiscally, and how it would avoid the pitfalls of the current system.

I'm all ears...

[PCCraig]

As has been said before, I don't think there is any mystery to any of it.

The magazines get the free ratings info, to sell off for 100% profit - WIN

The courses get publicity for a very cheap in the form of a few comp'd rounds - WIN

The raters get to play a wide variety of courses, some of them maybe they couldn't have played otherwise - WIN

Kalen,


You've summed it up nicely.

[BCowan]

Kalen,

I know several raters who dropped their memberships at their local clubs because when they became raters there is no logical reason to still pay dues. It only hurts the Mom and Pops so who cares.

Jkava,

   One could argue that the club is better off.?.?  Less yo yo's     You gotta respect the clubs that don't allow raters on their course.  They are comfortable in their own skin.  Someone has to stay in the shadows

[Jeff Taylor]

I don't read the course ratings to figure out where I want to play. Maybe that is why the economics escape me.
This site seams like a pretty good way to avoid the ratings game. Maybe we should be required to pay for posting.

[DMoriarty]

Kalen, I find it interesting your win-win-win scenario seems to ignore whether golfers actually benefit from all this.

..but by all means, what would be better?  Please be specific with reasons on why it would be superior, how it would work fiscally, and how it would avoid the pitfalls of the current system.

I'm all ears...

The Confidential Guide approach is better.  Hire one or few professionals to discuss, describe, debate, rate, etc. That way, over time, readers could actually begin to understand the perspective of the expert, and react accordingly.

I have a lot of respect for the opinions of some individuals, some of whom happen to be raters, but in the aggregate, I don't think the ratings provide much useful information.

[JMEvensky]

The GD panelist I am playing with Monday is very questionable. Brit living in Arkansas... sketchy.

If it's the one I'm thinking of,sketchy is being too kind  .

[Greg Tallman]

Matthew, I noted earlier in this discussion that GD panelists do not rate outside the US, something that comes directly from the top. Just last week I fielded a call from a GD panelist stating that he was enlisted to review the course. I called him on it, saying that I was told directly that panelists did not rate outside the US.

Sorry Greg...I didn't realize you referred to that in your previous posts. I get an "F" for the day in reading comprehension. Just as a side note, GD panelists do evaluate Canadian courses.


It really is too bad that you've had a considerable number of negative experiences with panelists. I guess it shouldn't surprise me how misguided and crass people can be.

Matthew,

No worries and the number of "bad eggs" is not a huge number but not an insignificant percentage either.

Now that you mention it the recent GD caller did note the Canadian point as well. Why Canada and not Mexico/Caribbean where more have likely played?

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen, I find it interesting your win-win-win scenario seems to ignore whether golfers actually benefit from all this.

..but by all means, what would be better?  Please be specific with reasons on why it would be superior, how it would work fiscally, and how it would avoid the pitfalls of the current system.

I'm all ears...

The Confidential Guide approach is better.  Hire one or few professionals to discuss, describe, debate, rate, etc. That way, over time, readers could actually begin to understand the perspective of the expert, and react accordingly.

I have a lot of respect for the opinions of some individuals, some of whom happen to be raters, but in the aggregate, I don't think the ratings provide much useful information.

David,

I completely agree with your first statement....but then again it was never my intent to say how others outside of the loop benefit, only to provide an explanation of why the current system runs and likely won't stop anytime soon.

As for having only a select few, there are several problems as I see it...here are a few.

 --  The lack of sheer data points.  A few guys can only see so many courses and devout so much time to discussing them.
 -- Fiscally how does this work?  Are they paid?  Does someone fund them upfront for all the travel and otherwise?
 -- Do we all have to wait 10 years for the guide to come out?
 -- Who chooses who these select few are? And if one quits, does the work load double for everyone else?
 -- When one of these guys shows up at a course, everyone and their brother will know who they are and roll out the proverbial red-carpet.  How will these guys know if they are getting an authenticate experience or not?

[Mark Bourgeois]

We should call this thread The Lumberjack. We're all  grinding an axe!

Dave's already explained the purpose of rankings: to sell magazines (and now to get eyeballs, too). The magazines need to make a profit. It's not sinister; they're not charities and the money pays for the non-rankings stuff that we value. Cross-subsidies like that sometimes represent screwed-up economics, but for us it seems to break out way so: okay.

Now they need to find more revenue. I think auctions are the way to go. If it comes to it, the magazines can siphon some off to the courses as compensation for their trouble.

[Sean_A]

Kalen, I find it interesting your win-win-win scenario seems to ignore whether golfers actually benefit from all this.

..but by all means, what would be better?  Please be specific with reasons on why it would be superior, how it would work fiscally, and how it would avoid the pitfalls of the current system.

I'm all ears...

The Confidential Guide approach is better.  Hire one or few professionals to discuss, describe, debate, rate, etc. That way, over time, readers could actually begin to understand the perspective of the expert, and react accordingly.

I have a lot of respect for the opinions of some individuals, some of whom happen to be raters, but in the aggregate, I don't think the ratings provide much useful information.

Dave


Time to get down off the high horse.  I am struggling to think of many things connected with golf which provide useful information    Its all pretty much hobby crap..so not terribly useful...even if entertaining.  I dare say many more people are entertained by rankings than any other info stream dealing with golf. 


While I do think there is a better way to conduct rankings...I am not at all convinced a better list of courses will necessarily be the result.  No matter how scrupulous the process...garbage opinion in spits out garbage results.  Of course...by garbage I mean that which is counter to any specific opinion. 


So far as paying for the card...people have a choice.  Dave labels those willing to trade money for access...whores.  Sure, by that definition any trade is whoring...so not very useful info there either 

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

Kalen, I don't think any of those present much problem.  How does it work with the Confidential Guide?  Those books provide better information about a hell of a lot more courses than do the golf magazine lists. The golf magazines would provide a better service to their readers by offering something similar on a continually updated basis.  And if the reviewers are providing a truly valuable service then then why shouldn't they be paid?

And why would we have to wait ten years?  Golf magazines could hire someone who was already an expert, or they could free their current writers from dealing with this rater nonsense so they could focus on substantive reviews and information.

-- Who chooses who these select few are? And if one quits, does the work load double for everyone else?

  The magazines hire the reviewers just as a newspaper hires a restaurant critic. And if the magazines focused on substantive reviews by one or a few experts, the "workload" would be much less in the aggregate.  It is really necessary for five or ten or twenty raters per year to play Pebble Beach to know that it is still Pebble Beach?

When one of these guys shows up at a course, everyone and their brother will know who they are and roll out the proverbial red-carpet.  How will these guys know if they are getting an authenticate experience or not?

How do the hoards of raters know now?  At least with this system the courses only have to roll out the red carpet once or a few times, as opposed to every time a rater slaps his card on the counter.

[Sean_A]

What's going to become really clear from this thread is that as people defend this system, literally everybody who does so is going to be someone who receives a benefit from it - mostly raters in denial, but also those who benefit from it in other ways.  My hunch is that this is going be 100% true.

In denial of what exactly?  That many don't quite see the situation in the extreme terms you do?  Its not as if payment for access is breaking a societal moral imperative.


BTW - I am expecting to eat Persian food at a London restaurant you know (but I don't know its name)...any ideas of what to order?  That would be useful info 


Ciao